History
  • No items yet
midpage
43 N.W. 572
Minn.
1889
By the Court.

We are of opinion that the verdict in this case was justified by the evidence, and we see no reason for supposing that the amount of it was purély arbitrary, as contended by appellants. It is entirely reconcilable with the evidence and the law as given by the trial judge upon substantially the grounds suggested in respondent’s brief. The receipt given by plaintiff to Shepard & Co., being a mere acknowledgment of payment, was subject to parol explanation or contradiction, and there was ample evidence to justify the jury in finding that there was no settlement of plaintiff’s claim, but that the receipt was merely given to enable him to obtain the money in the hands of Shepard & Co. belonging to defendants. Morris v. St. Paul & Chicago Ry. Co., 21 Minn. 91.

Order affirmed.

Case Details

Case Name: Elsbarg v. Myrman
Court Name: Supreme Court of Minnesota
Date Published: Nov 1, 1889
Citations: 43 N.W. 572; 1889 Minn. LEXIS 412; 41 Minn. 541
Court Abbreviation: Minn.
AI-generated responses must be verified
and are not legal advice.
Log In